undefined | Better HN

0 pointsuntog10y ago0 comments

> Your idea is worthless. Execution is what matters.

That strikes me as an overplayed sentiment.

Your execution can never be as good as one done at the OS level by the company that owns it. That does not mean your idea is 'overvalued'. In fact, quite the opposite - it usually means you have proved that your idea has enough value that it should be bundled up and given to every single person who uses the OS. You just won't benefit from it.

0 comments

7 comments · 1 top-level

toomuchtodo10y ago· 6 in thread

Let's me try again then.

If you're unable to extract value from your idea, but someone else can, the idea has no value to you. Does it have value? In the right hands, probably. That doesn't entitle you to that value though.

untogOP10y ago

Sure. But how do you know which ideas Apple will integrate into their OS and which they won't? That knowledge imbalance is paralyzing, and in effect means that if you take that path of thinking to its conclusion, there are extremely few apps worth making.

dsjoerg10y ago

Correct.

askafriend10y ago

It means that you've got to own the original content.

E.g. Facebook, or Gmail.

ams611010y ago

If you're paralyzed by the idea that someone will compete with you, startups are not where you should be.

p4wnc610y ago

Doesn't this just mean that Apple, Google, etc., are rent seeking? If there's a creek behind my house where the community comes to get fish, that's value for those people. If I see them doing it and build a giant fence and start charging money for creek access and fishing permits, that's pure rent seeking. I didn't create the value or extract value from something where others couldn't extract value. I artificially prevented people from extracting value they otherwise easily could have, and then charged them for access.

It's mostly the same with apps that are copied into OS features. What entitles Apple, Google, etc., to the value of that idea beyond some kind of might makes right argument? They're big and they spend money on regulatory capture and legal battles, so that alone entitles them?

I mean, it does entitle them, at least currently, if we take only a very narrow understanding of "entitled" to mean "that which does actually happen and isn't prevented." But that's not really the spirit of the laws, public sentiment, or how this stuff relates to overall human welfare.

toomuchtodo10y ago

> Doesn't this just mean that Apple, Google, etc., are rent seeking?

I don't think so. Its subjective, of course, but they are consistently adding value to their platforms and services.

> It's mostly the same with apps that are copied into OS features. What entitles Apple, Google, etc., to the value of that idea beyond some kind of might makes right argument?

A patent is a license from the government to extract value from your idea for a period of time. If your idea meets the criteria for a patent, I encourage you to patent it. If your idea doesn't meet the criteria, tough. Apple and Google are then entitled to the value for execution, whereas you're entitled to nothing.

> They're big and they spend money on regulatory capture and legal battles, so that alone entitles them?

While a small amount of regulatory capture and legal battles have contributed to the development of Apple and Google's ecosystems, what entitles them to their value is the moat they've created through effort (engineers * time).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse